Posts Tagged ‘anarchyjc’

By @anarchyroll

Scientific studies just sound like the most credible thing in the world don’t they?

Not only is it scientific, but it involves studying. How can you go wrong with that combination? Unless you’re religious of course. Because then you start entering the; are their dinosaurs and dogs in heaven matrix. Which will only end in ruined dinner parties and tears.

A wise man once said that facts can be used to prove anything that’s remotely true, facts, shmacts. That wise man was of course the great philosopher Homer Simpson. In the era of 24 hour news cycles and twice a week podcast drops, scientific studies are the new facts.

What’s the difference between a scientific study and a proven fact? Well if you are trying to prove a point, win an argument, or create online content to market then the answer is nothing. But the actual difference is an important one. The difference between facts and hearsay is deep and wide, just ask a lawyer or a judge.

But if you’re trying to create content for a cable news show or it’s website, or are publishing the findings of a scientific study to make a splash to get more funding for more scientific studies, the difference between facts and hearsay is razor thin. John Oliver did a great job pointing this out on the previous season of Last Week Tonight.

Around the same time I first saw the above video, I also saw an alarming headline about medical error being the third leading cause of death in America.

It grabbed my attention, how could it not?

I sat down to write an article about it at a later date and when I went to look the article up, there was already a story challenging the study as being sensationalism over scientific. Science is not content in need of marketing, it is light in need of spreading.

However, scientific studies have had their credibility leveraged as a tool to confuse and persuade rather than educate and enlighten. Our silence and gullibility makes us culpable in this practice becoming not just commonplace but foundational in creating content for televised news in America. Television was created by product marketers for product marketers. Anything that appears on television, much like anything seen at a pro wrestling event, is for entertainment purposes only.

The problem is that was a memo that never got sent out. It is a course not taught in schools. It is a life lesson many parents don’t think to pass on. So people take what they see on the news as gospel and adjust the way they live their lives accordingly. If disposable science says the third leading cause of death is medical error, I wonder where death via scientific study error ranks.

When was the last time something new was classified as a utility?

The internet being officially classified as a utility isn’t just another part of a disposable  news cycle. This is more than a current event. This is a piece of bonafied technological and human history.

The internet being classified in the same context as water, electrcity, gasoline, and the telephone is historic. Why? Because it changes many aspects of life for many many people forever. The direction the internet moves in, changes after this event. How? Because so many more people will have access to the internet. Regulation placed upon the price gouging Internet Service Providers will only help the have nots gain consistent access to the information super highway.

When things get bigger, they don’t stay the same. Evolution is inevitable just as change is the only constant.

Comcast, AT &T, Verizon and any/all ISPs have made their intentions clear with what they intend to do with the internet of the future, by the way they treat the technology AND the people dependent on the technology in the present. They want to tier and cap service while bleeding their dependent customer base for every nickel and dime they can. They have been doing this, are doing this, and will continue to do this until somebody stops them.

We have reached a tipping point where only an entity as big as the federal government can tell the ISPs that enough is enough, they’ve gone too far, it is time for regulation of pricing practices to democratize the technology for the masses  The masses need to internet not for the luxury of binge watching shows to waste their lives, but for the basics required in the 21st century to live their lives.


If people want to live and thrive in the modern world, internet use is required
. It’s no longer a consumer-good-luxury-item. That which was once done on paper is now done online. Applying for a job is done online. A job is needed to pay the bills, which is also done online. After one gets a job and pays their bills, if they have something left over and want to buy anything, researching that product or service is done online. Either purchasing the product or service or finding directions to a physical location to go do are both done online.

At one point in human history, consistent access to drinking water was a luxury. But then the standard of living evolved just as the human race did. Electricity and gasoline instead of fire? A thought inconceivable as a witch’s magic at one point in our past. But we raised the bar. Shelter capable of protecting people all but only the most extreme elements of nature was once thought to be reserved for large stone castles.

Body language to spoken word to written hyrogliphs to the printing press to the telegraph to the telephone to the fax machine to the world wide web and now the smartphone. Technology once thought to be science fiction dreams of the future are now everyday essentials. Humans have come from using rocks and sticks to make fire to harnessing super computers in the palm of our hand utilizing satellites from space on a second to second basis.

This wonderful technology has given human beings great power to influence ourselves and the world at large. With this great power comes great responsibility. Part of that responsibility is sharing the power with the masses. Access to this power is no longer a luxurious leg up on the competition but has evolved into the minimum requirement to get in the game.

This issue is destined for a decision from the Supreme Court. There is too much money at stake for district courts. The internet touches too many lives for appellete courts. History beckons that the Supreme Court of the United States decide the law of the land on the issue of internet access as a necessary utility or a luxury consumer good.

frackishimalogo1ajclogo2
by @anarchyroll

Did you know warm water contain less oxygen?

I didn’t. Like most people when I think of what produces oxygen, I think of trees. But 70% of the Earth’s oxygen comes from the ocean, more specifically from the marine plants in the ocean.

0-95685800_1438940931_45-1-20150815

One need not be an environmentalist or a cynic to be aware that the average person doesn’t give a shit about marine phytoplankton. Even people tuned into environmental news are likely to think phytoplankton is a superfood juice fad. Perhaps because Googling marine phytoplankton brings up almost exclusively websites trying to sell the plant in powdered form.

“Save the Trees” may be easier to say and fit on a button/bumper sticker, but it is the phytoplankton that produces almost 3/4 of the oxygen. Maybe we can turn “Save the Phytoplankton” into a meme or gif.

Did you know we need oxygen to live?

It’s true, although it feels like suffocation to not have access to dank memes and social media, not having oxygen is actually suffocation.

So although we as humans have demonstrated a remarkable tolerance for pollution of the air we breathe, that tolerance is likely to be just a wee bit smaller with no air to breathe at all.

mm@C4logo2ajclogo2

by @anarchyroll

Temporary, private multimedia messages exchanged through a smartphone application.

Sharing personal moments. That is what Snapchat is about. That is why it is the social media platform de jour in America, it is THE preferred method of communication to a number of young people that warrants the phrase of a generation.

The early adopters may have used it predominantly for NSFW purposes. But the majority of users these days are using it to share their lives with a limited spectrum of people in their social circle. And of course young people use it to for the inherent ability of the app to prevent parents, relatives, teachers, and bosses from seeing their communications and embarrassing them on another public and achievable medium.

Big business has recently come around to the idea of leveraging Snapchat to build community like loyalty for their products. Snapchat still has an air of being counter culture cool and ahead of the curve. So anyone trying to make money is trying to utilize Snapchat’s young, cool factor.

Is Snapchat cool?

Well it is fun.

The people who use Snapchat have fun doing it. The ability to customize messages in so many ways, then send it out only to people the sender wants seeing it, for a limited amount of time. Snapchat has stood on the shoulders of Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter and has built a platform that combines the positives of each without the negatives.

Snapchat, like Tinder has an earned reputation for as an medium for the explicit and salacious. To deny that Snapchat is used as an exchange for sexual/sexualized acts and content is to deny reality. However, both Snapchat and Tinder are about much more than people’s naughty bits. Both are very much mainstream and both have a vastly large number of users who use the services for very much on the level, straightforward communication.

The purpose of Snapchat is that it is a temporary, multimedia messaging service and social media combo. The value is that the messages are temporary. In the era of big brother watching, there is an inherent comfort in sending a visual message that will self destruct in a maximum time of ten seconds. Whether the files actually delete themselves is another story and the public has decided is not important. The illusion of self destructing messages is just fine for most people whether they are sending goofy faces and/or nudes.

That comfort and intimacy whether illusionary or authentic is currently being exploited by every company and celebrity A list to Z. The business of Snapchat is on the exclusivity of the people the messages are shared with by the users and by the limited number of companies allowed to be featured in its Discover section. The personal of Snapchat is the fun factor that comes with the variety of ways to customize each message.

Snapchat has helped me open up more and share more personal moments with the world. For an antisocial who has battled depression and social anxiety for over half his life, that is a very good thing.

what-is-a-gmo

By @anarchyroll

Is GMO labeling important?

If it wasn’t, the companies who put GMOs in our food wouldn’t be actively and expensively trying to stop legislation mandating GMO labeling in America.

GMO labeling is the norm in 64 other countries around the world, which includes pretty much all the other industrialized ones.

There can certainly be a case made for GMOs, you know, with all the starving people in the world who don’t care if the food they get to eat is organic or GMO as long as they get to eat and not die.

But for the large percentage of the population that can think and live above the survival plain, who want to know what they are putting in their body, why all the resistance if there is nothing wrong with GMOs?

Times have changed, people literally want to know how the sausage is made these days. In the 1900s, that wasn’t the case, then again neither was equal rights for women and minorities. Times have changed.

Times have changed so much in Europe, that GMO labeling is so passé that countries are moving into the banning stage. Scotland and Germany have recently announced GMO crop bans. Meanwhile in America, we’re hoping the state of Vermont can lead the way.

Vermont? Isn’t that Bernie Sanders‘ home state? Yes, yes it is. Bernie Sanders has long been a champion of labeling GMO ingredients in food.

The resistance from GMO creators to labeling legislation tells you all you need to know about this issue. That and Monsanto is one of the largest creators of GMOs. If there is nothing to hide, why are they spending hundreds of millinos of dollars to hide? If GMOs are safe, why are Germany and Scotland banning them?

How do we or they know GMOs are safe if there are no long term studies on humans who ingest and/or are exposed to them?

And remember that in America, people just want the right to know. The battle over banning GMOs in America is a half a decade at minimum away from starting. This battle is just about the right of consumers to know if the food they are buying for themselves and their children contains GMOs.

In general, those who not only wish to suppress information from the public and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to do so, can be classified as evil and on the wrong side of history. The GMO labeling issue/debate is no different.